Follow us!

Get in touch with us

Item has been added

Get 20% off!arrow_drop_up

Role of government & media

  • person Plant Based Wellness Foundation
  • calendar_today
  • comment 0 comments
Role of government & media

November 10, 2024, 6:51 PM IST 
We’ve discussed how wealthy industries like Food, Pharma, and Health Care influence the information we receive. Now, let’s examine the roles of Government and Media. By “government,” I mean both elected politicians and bureaucrats.

Politicians need funding to win elections every 4-5 years, and that money often comes from wealthy industries, so it’s natural for them to support industry interests. Lobbyists work closely with politicians’ staff to ensure this support is secured.

Meanwhile, bureaucrats often seek well-paid positions post-retirement, and there are plenty of opportunities within the food and pharma industries to accommodate them. Consequently, many senior officials are willing to accommodate lobbyists’ requests. All they need is some science to justify their actions, which researchers—often industry-funded—readily provide.

Let’s now consider educational institutions, where much of the research is conducted. Imagine you are applying for a Ph.D. program at a leading US university and need financial assistance. This assistance might come from, say, a soft drink manufacturer eager to fund research showing that consuming sugary sodas in moderation can be part of a balanced diet. The company provides funding annually. By the end of the first year, if your research findings are negative, the project might be canceled, and funding cut. This situation encourages researchers to use careful language in reports and potentially manipulate data to achieve favorable outcomes.

The data isn’t falsified, but choosing specific words or omitting data can still lead to misleading conclusions. Once published in a medical journal, the research paper includes an abstract. Doctors often only read the abstract, so lobbyists work hard to influence the language used here. Professor JP Rivers of the Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, observed:

“The dispassionate objectivity of scientists is a myth. No scientist is simply involved in the single-minded pursuit of truth; they are also engaged in the passionate pursuit of research grants and professional success.”

Role of media

Now, let’s talk about the role of media and medical journals. Editors have various options for each issue and can select whichever articles they prefer.

Most published media rely on advertising revenue for their income. The proceeds from magazine sales alone don’t even cover the cost of publication. The largest advertisers are often the big food and pharmaceutical industries. Therefore, it is natural for publishers to avoid controversial content that might jeopardize their relationships with advertisers.

Another factor to consider is article reprints. For example, if you like an article in a magazine like TIME, you can purchase reprints for about $3–5 each. The cover page shows the magazine cover, but inside, only the article you requested is included.

Imagine you’re an editor, deciding which health articles to include in the next issue. A dairy industry lobbyist approaches you and suggests that if you publish an article supporting the health benefits of butter, he’ll order half a million reprints to distribute to doctors across the US What would you choose as the editor? That order could bring in nearly a million dollars in extra revenue for the magazine, and if your compensation includes profit-sharing, it could result in a substantial bonus for you.

It’s important to understand that this scenario isn’t a conspiracy. No laws are broken, and there’s no bribery involved. However, the consumer ends up misled, and situations like this happen every day. Here’s an example issue of TIME I’m referring to.

WHO & Sugar

In 1776, when the United States gained independence, Americans consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per person annually—about 5 grams daily. By 1850, this had increased to 20 pounds per person, and by 1994, it reached 120 pounds. Over the past half-century, the food industry has increasingly used sugar to sweeten foods and beverages, often substituting it with high-fructose corn syrup, which is cheaper and widely available in the U.S. When efforts are made to limit sugar use, the industry often responds with resistance and pressure to halt those initiatives. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the World Health Organization, summarized this challenge:

“One of the biggest challenges facing health promotion worldwide is that efforts to prevent our top killers ‘go against the business interests of Big Food, Big Soda, and Big Alcohol'”

Please watch the YouTube video titled “Big Sugar Takes on the World Health Organization” to understand how, in 2003, the US government—under pressure from the sugar lobby—threatened to stop funding the WHO unless they changed the language of their guidelines on sugar consumption.

US government, protein myth and objectivity in nutritional research

The following are quotes from a paper by UC Berkeley’s Nutrition Science Professor Kenneth J. Carpenter, titled “The History of Enthusiasm for Protein”:

“In the 1890s the USDA recommended over 110 grams of dietary protein per day for working men. This was based on Liebig’s idea that protein was the source of muscular energy and the observation that protein consumption was higher in the more successful (i.e. affluent) social groups or nations than elsewhere.”

“After the 1939-45 war dry skim milk became available in the USA as a “fortune by-product of a domestic surplus-product problem”. It was clearly more satisfactory in every respect to dump it in the developing countries than to have to burry it in the US, as was contemplated by the Department of Agriculture at one point.”

As part of the ‘Food for Peace’ program, later known as USAID PL-480, a nonprofit eye hospital led by my father also benefited from this aid. I mention this to highlight how the USDA once promoted the ‘protein myth,’ encouraging protein consumption at three times the actual requirement. Dr Greger’s video provides an interesting perspective on this issue, also pointing out how scientists can sometimes lose objectivity in the pursuit of grants and professional success.

In a paper written by Professor J P Rivers from the Department of Human Nutrition at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, he states:

“The dispassionate objectivity of scientists is a myth. No scientist is simply involved in the single-minded pursuit of truth, he is also engaged in the passionate pursuit of research grants and professional success.”

Misleading ads by egg industry 

Since eggs are high in dietary cholesterol, the egg industry faces challenges in addressing consumer resistance. In the mid-1990s, the Federal Trade Commission successfully challenged the industry’s misleading advertising claims about the health effects of eggs. The following videos illustrate the industry’s efforts and explain why they cannot claim that eggs are healthy or safe.

Eggs and cholesterol: Patently false and misleading claims

https://youtu.be/8g8ASQZ0dZw

Who says eggs aren’t healthy or safe

https://youtu.be/RtGf2FuzKo4

Do eggs raise cholesterol?

https://youtu.be/t9BDX6wSSk0

The great protein fiasco

https://youtu.be/7NW32vLq340

To read the complete article on Times of India click here